Appeal 3301213

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the condition is reasonable and necessary having regard to the effects on highway safety.

From the evidence and from my observations on site, it appeared that the use of land as a dog training/exercise area and associated development had commenced in accordance with the permission granted, save for the works to the junction required by condition 3, which had not been undertaken.

The appeal site is accessed from the A3072 which connects Bude with Holsworthy, via a short length of rural road, known as [address]. Offset from the site on the opposite side of the appeal site is the large business premises, [name], which, at the time of my visit, was busy with visiting members of the public. There is a dedicated left turn lane between the carriageways of the A3072 which serves a road that also provides access to the [name]. Due to the site’s position in relation to the same, traffic using the left hand lane for the [name] on approach from the east may conflict with traffic wishing to turn into the appeal site from a westerly direction.

[address] is a classified highway, and accesses a small number of dwellings other than just [site address] . It is also alleged to be used as a cut through when the main road to Bude is closed. However, it is narrow with very limited passing places, particularly steep in places and it appears that a lack of maintenance has resulted in a poor surface. Whilst there is nothing specifically prohibiting its general use, it is not likely to be a desirable one where preferrable alternative options exist, i.e. the A3072.

The appellant’s traffic survey of vehicle movements accessing [address] suggests that for the specified three-hour durations on four weekdays when the business was closed, there was a range of 21 – 27 movements using the A3072/Howard lane junction on each occasion.

From the appellants’ evidence, the appeal proposal, whilst only accessing a short length of [address], is predicted to increase the number of movements into and out from the junction by a range of potentially 20 – 32 cars, i.e. 40 – 64 movements into and out from the junction each week. In my view, this is a material increase in the use of the junction above the level of use demonstrated by the appellants.

The parking area intended to serve the business would be for a maximum of four cars. This appears to tally with the predicted maximum number of visitors predicted for group classes. However, whilst any delineated parking spaces could be controlled, there are other areas which could be used for parking if needed. Furthermore, a condition preventing more than four cars being parked or limiting the visitor numbers as such would not be strictly enforceable without placing an undue burden on the Council to monitor the situation and would fail the tests for planning conditions as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance1. The need for supervision and or weather-related reasons put forward as to why the scale of the business and related traffic movements will be inherently constrained to such limited numbers cannot be strictly relied upon either.

Given the materiality of the predicted increase in vehicular movements accessing the junction and inability to specifically restrict the same by way of planning condition, negotiations were held between the parties and other local representatives. It appears that a plan was subsequently devised and submitted by the appellants, Plan Ref OSE/21.04, detailing the works which are listed in condition 3 in the interests of completeness.

The main point made by the appellants is that they should not have to bear the entire cost of the works as they were not originally forecast within the start-up costs and to do so would render the business unviable. It appears that the appellants were advised during the course of the appeal application that the need for the markings arose specifically from the proposed business use of the site. That the costs were not forecast as part of formulating the business plan is not a relevant consideration and very limited evidence is available to suggest that the viability of the business is reliant on avoiding such costs.

In any event, I witnessed for myself the speed with which users are passing the junction, the frequency of use of the right-turn lane and, given the 1 Planning Practice Guidance, paragraph 003 [name]: 21a-003-20190723 increased use of the junction, consider that there is a need to clarify the road layout in order to avoid potential collisions. The costs of undertaking such works are necessary to ensure highway safety, for even the relatively modest number of users that the business would attract. The responsibility of the cost is not strictly a matter for me, but as it is the appellants’ endeavour to establish a permanent business base, it logically follows that the costs of ensuring the safety of its clientele would fall to them.

[name] note the appellants’ suggestion that [name] has not had to fund the provision of the right turn lane or any further highway improvements as part of its recent extension, there is limited evidence of this and it is also relevant that the proposal itself would effect a further change to the highway which should be made safe.

For the reasons set out above, I consider that the condition is reasonable and necessary having regard to the effects on highway safety to ensure compliance with Cornwall Local Plan Policy 27. This Policy seeks to ensure that developments provide safe and suitable access to the site for all and do not cause a significantly adverse impact on the local or strategic road network that cannot be managed or mitigated.

Though it is alleged that the appeal site has always received a regular number of visitors in connection with former businesses, i.e. equestrian, café or childminding uses, none of these appear to have been formalised through a previous planning permission or Certificate of Lawfulness2 and there is no record of the likely number of visits in connection with the same. As such, this point does not attract any weight in the overall balance.

For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is dismissed.